Christian denominations are losing followers quicker than a cat loses interest in a laser

pointer, at the meantime, the conservative and stricter denominations like Evangelicals

are holding strong or even growing.

So why this is happening, let's find out with PAA.

Hi, I am Shao Chieh Lo, welcome to what people also ask, where I search something seemingly

obvious and share with you some of its PAA, aka People Also Ask, which is a feature telling

you what other people are searching on Google that relates to your query Today's query is

“strict church theory”, a theory that suggests that strict religious are stronger.

We will also explore if this theory can explain the decline of liberal-leaning churches in

the United States with relevant research and online articles.

So let's start with our first question What is strict church theory?

According to an article titled “The Power of the Mustard Seed-Why strict churches are

strong.”published by Slate, the strict church theory, as explained by economist Laurence

Iannaccone in his 1994 essay "Why Strict Churches Are Strong," suggests that people choose to

join strict religious communities because of the quantifiable benefits their piety affords

them.

Laurence Iannaccone is an American economist who has extensively studied the economics

of religion.

He, alongside other scholars, has developed a theory called the "supply-side theory of

religion”, which suggests that religious groups can be analyzed like other economic

organizations, such as firms or markets.

According to Iannaccone, the devout person is willing to pay a high financial, social,

and emotionally price to participate in strict religion because he believes he buys a so-called

“better religious product”.

A better religious product, as Iannaccone defined, is one that is more costly to produce

and consume.

He argues that higher costs can signal a stronger commitment to the group and its beliefs, and

therefore result in greater participation and loyalty from members.

For example, a religious group that requires members to attend frequent meetings, make

significant financial contributions, and adhere to strict behavioral guidelines may be seen

as offering a "better" product than a group that has few requirements and little commitment

from its members.

The rules discourage free riders aka the people who undermine group efforts by taking more

than they give back.

The strict church is one in which members with weak commitments have been weeded out,

resulting in a community of passionate members who are deeply involved in one another's lives

and more willing than most to come to one another's aid.

In this way, religion is seen as a "commodity" that people produce collectively, and the

benefits of strict religious observance are thought to extend beyond the afterlife and

into secular day-to-day life even the participant might not aware of its secular value.

However, it's important to note that Iannaccone's theory has been subject to debate and criticism

from other scholars in the field of religious studies, who argue that it oversimplifies

the complex nature of religious experience and community.

Which we will discuss later.

But before that, let's talk about What are some examples of “strict churches”?

Here are some real-life examples of how the theory applies to different religious groups:

Amish: The Amish are a Christian denomination known for their traditional, conservative

lifestyle.

They live in tight-knit communities and adhere to strict moral codes, such as dressing modestly

and abstaining from modern technology.

The Amish church demands a high level of commitment from its members, including regular attendance

at church services and adherence to strict behavioral guidelines.

The high cost of joining and remaining in the Amish community may be seen as a reason

why the Amish have been able to maintain a strong and cohesive community over time.

Hasidic Jews: Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism that emphasizes the importance

of spiritual growth and religious observance.

Hasidic Jews are known for their distinctive dress, their emphasis on prayer and study,

and their strict adherence to Jewish law.

The Hasidic community demands a high level of commitment from its members, including

regular attendance at synagogue services and strict adherence to dietary laws and other

religious practices.

The high cost of membership in the Hasidic community may be seen as a reason why the

community has been able to maintain its distinctive identity and a strong sense of community over

time.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination known for their evangelistic

zeal and their emphasis on door-to-door preaching.

The Jehovah's Witnesses church demands a high level of commitment from its members, including

regular attendance at meetings, adherence to strict behavioral guidelines, and a willingness

to devote time and resources to evangelism.

The high cost of membership in the Jehovah's Witnesses community may be seen as a reason

why the community has been able to maintain a strong sense of identity and purpose over

time.

What are some criticisms of strict church theory?

There are many criticisms and discussions that challenge the assumptions of strict church

theory, for example, one study titled “Are strict churches really stronger?

A study of strictness, congregational activity and growth in American Protestant churches”

published by West Virginia University in 2010 examines the relationship between strictness,

congregational activity, and church growth.

While some indicators of strictness and congregational activity are positively associated with growth,

most do not have strong associations with it.

The study suggests that other factors or church characteristics may be better predictors of

church growth, but strictness and congregational activity are indeed correlated with growth.

However, it appears that a strong sense of purpose and mission is more important for

growth than strictness itself.

Overall, strictness appears to be associated with growth, but promoting solidarity may

be more important than strictness in particular.

There are also many logical criticisms of this theory, and I have compiled some of them

as follows: Causal ambiguity: It is not clear whether the success of strict religious communities

is due to their strict practices or other factors, such as their geographic location,

historical context, or the specific beliefs of their members.

Selection bias: The strict church theory tends to select successful religious communities

and attributes their success to their strict practices while ignoring the many unsuccessful

communities that also have strict practices.

Ethnocentrism: The strict church theory tends to focus on Protestant communities in the

United States, ignoring other religious traditions and communities around the world.

And even if the strict church theory does hold water to some degree, it's obvious

strict churches do have some limitations.

So When would a strict church fail to attract followers?

The strict church theory suggests that strictness in religious practice can be beneficial to

a religious organization.

However, this theory has its limitations.

One limitation is that strictness can be counterproductive if a church fails to provide acceptable substitutes

for what it asks its members to give up.

For example, cults that lure their followers into the wilderness but provide them with

no livelihood soon fade into history.

A good example of the strictness of a church backfiring is Scientology.

Scientology has a reputation for being highly controlling and strict, with strict codes

of conduct, intense levels of surveillance, and an emphasis on discipline.

While strictness can foster group loyalty, in Scientology's case, it may have pushed

some followers away, who found the level of control suffocating or invasive.

Scientology is known for its high financial demands on its members, including expensive

courses and donations required for spiritual advancement.

The financial burden placed on members may have discouraged some followers from continuing

their involvement with the church.

While the overly-strict policies of a church could be counterproductive, a certain degree

of strictness can be beneficial in the spiritual marketplace, as it provides an advantage by

attracting enthusiastic and committed followers.

In America, where there is no state religion and is a truly open market in religion, there

are many varieties of fundamentalism and orthodoxy, including the explosive growth of conservative

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and the slow decline of more liberal denominations

such as Episcopalianism.

This may represent the natural outcome of religious competition.

So does that means the religious landscape will gradually be dominated by conservatives?

That is our next question: Would the religious landscape be gradually dominated by conservatives?

Assuming that the strict church theory holds true, it is possible that liberal churches

may diminish over time, while conservative and strict churches thrive.

The crucial question to consider is what impact this shift could have on the present and future

political and religious climate.

An article titled “Why IS liberal Protestantism dying, anyway?”

published by Patheo argues that conservative churches tend to be better at forming communities

than liberal churches.

The reason for this, according to the author, is that conservative churches tend to have

more rigorous membership requirements, which helps them build a stronger core of committed

believers and eliminate people with weaker commitments.

If a church demands that members tithe 10% of their income, arrive on time each Sunday

without fail, and agree to believe seemingly crazy things, only those who are really sure

they want to stick around will stay.

This theory has been tested empirically.

For example, anthropologist Richard Sosis and psychologist Eric Bressler conducted a

retrospective study of American communes in the 19th century titled “Cooperation and

Commune Longevity: A Test of the Costly Signaling Theory of Religion” published in Cross-Cultural

Research in 2003 found that religious communes whose membership requirements were strict

and demanding survived, on average, many years longer than those without strict demands.

Overall, the article suggests that conservative churches tend to have stronger communities

than liberal churches because they have stricter membership requirements, which helps them

build a stronger core of committed believers.

But are conservatives actually gradually dominating the religious landscape?

At least in America, not really.

One thing to notice is that almost all the previously mentioned articles and research

in this video that support strict church theory are mainly citing data from before 2010.

But if you look into more recent data, it paints a totally different trend.

According to an article titled “The 2020 Census of American Religion” published by

the Public Religion Research Institute, the religious landscape in the United States is

undergoing a gradual transformation but is not being overtly dominated by conservatives.

And notably, White mainline protestants have actually rebounded in recent years.

For those who don't know, mainline churches refer to a group of moderate Protestant denominations

in the United States, which typically hold more theologically and socially liberal views

compared to evangelical or fundamentalist counterparts.

These churches may support same-sex marriage within their congregations, express more inclusive

ideas about eternal salvation, and prioritize social welfare and justice in their political

efforts rather than emphasizing strict and conservative moral doctrines.

These denominations include the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the

Episcopal Church, among others.

According to the data by PRRI, while mainline churches experienced a decline over the past

few decades, recent data show that this decline has slowed down and even rebounded, indicating

a shift in the trend.

After a decline from 19% of the population in 2007 to a low of 13% in 2016, mainline

churches' proportion has seen a steady increase, reaching 16% in 2020.

Younger Americans also display a greater degree of religious diversity, with fewer identifying

as Christians and a larger proportion identifying as non-Christian religions.

In summary, while the religious landscape in the United States is evolving, it is not

predominantly dominated by conservatives.

However, the recent developments in the American religious landscape do not necessarily defy

the strict church theory but rather show a more nuanced and complex picture of religious

dynamics in the United States.

The rebound in more liberal-leaning mainline churches and the recent decline of more conservative

and strict religions might appear to challenge the strict church theory on the surface.

However, it is essential to consider that these changes are part of a broader and more

complex religious landscape that is influenced by various factors such as demographic shifts,

immigration, cultural changes, and intergenerational differences in religious beliefs and affiliations.

There may be instances where mainline churches adopt and implement certain practices or beliefs

that resonate with their members, leading to a resurgence in their growth.

Additionally, the broader societal context, such as an increased focus on social justice

and inclusion, may attract individuals to more moderate religious groups.

In addition, one downside of the data in this article is that, except for white Christians,

it does not divide Christians in other ethnic groups into more detailed categories, it simply

separates say “ black Protestants” into their own group, and then divides the white

Christians into various segments, so this trend might not be representative to other

minority groups.

In conclusion, recent data suggests that the religious landscape in the United States is

not predominantly dominated by conservatives, but rather presents a complex and nuanced

picture influenced by various factors, including societal context and demographic shifts, without

necessarily defying the strict church theory.

If you made it to the end of the video, chances are that you enjoy learning what people also

ask on Google.

But let's face it, reading PAA yourself will be a pain.

So here's the deal, I will do the reading for you and upload a video compiling some

fun PAAs once a week, all you have to do is to hit the subscribe button and the bell icon

so you won't miss any PAA report that I compile.

So just do it right now.

Bye!